CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s306B6575 { height:39.45pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 14094/15 Bogdan Sorin ARHIRE against Romania and 16 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23   September 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan, President,   Jolien Schukking,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” The Government argued that the applicants had lost their victim status because they had benefitted from the remedy offered by Law no.   169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences. They asked the Court to reject the present applications for being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention. The applicants disagreed claiming that the compensation awarded was insufficient. The Court notes that in a recent decision Dîrjan and Ştefan v.   Romania ((dec.), nos. 14224/15 and 50977/15, 15 April 2020) it has examined similar applications as the ones in the present case and declared them inadmissible considering that the applicants had lost their victim status. The Court noted that Law no. 169/2017 amending and completing Law no. 254/2013 on the execution of sentences, adopted following the pilot judgment in the case of Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania (nos. 61467/12 and 3 others, 25   April 2017) and in force between October 2017 and December 2019, had been an effective remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Romanian prisons. More specifically, the above law had set forth a compensatory remedy, available for periods of detention ranging from 2012 to 2019 and allowing the deduction of six days for 30 days spent in conditions of detention that fell short of standards compatible with Article   3 of the Convention (see Dîrjan and Ştefan , cited above, § 28). This benefit had impacted on the term of the prison sentences giving the detainees the opportunity of earlier release on parole. Turning to the circumstances of the present cases, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on their admissibility of those complaints. The above-mentioned remedy was available to the applicants in the present applications and, indeed, they benefitted from it. Thus, on different dates, the domestic authorities, applying the provisions described in the abovementioned decision Dîrjan and Ştefan , awarded compensation, through the reduction of days, to the applicants for the entire period of detention spent in inadequate conditions of which they complained (for further details see the appended table). Furthermore, the applicants were released from prison or were transferred to detention facilities they did not complain about. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicants have been afforded adequate redress and can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 3 of the Convention, insofar as the conditions of their detention, described in the appended table, are concerned. It follows that the applications in this part are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints In applications nos. 14094/15, 7932/16, 35226/16, 37695/16, 40683/16, 41256/16, 42971/16, 46337/16, 56889/16, 61263/16 and 61779/16 , the applicants also raised other complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, including, in some of them, related to the conditions of their detention during periods preceding the start date specified in the appended table and under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the abovementioned applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 October 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Domestic compensation awarded (in days) based on total period calculated domestically     14094/15 06/07/2015 Bogdan Sorin ARHIRE 1983     Miercurea Ciuc Prison 04/01/2013 to 25/08/2016 3 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 22 day(s)   420 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 10/08/2018     39249/15 21/08/2015     Ion POPII 1972         Colibași and Rahova Prisons 07/01/2014 to 03/11/2017 3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 28 day(s) 264 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 07/01/2014 to 03/11/2017     2828/16 25/01/2016     7932/16 09/03/2016 Tiberiu-Carol KALLAI 1981 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare Oradea and Satu Mare Prisons 21/04/2015 to 03/05/2018 3 year(s) and 13 day(s) 414 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 03/05/2018     35226/16 13/07/2016 Cosmin-Sarafim PAŞCAN 1983     Galați and Brăila Prisons 08/04/2014 to 06/03/2018 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 27 day(s) 408 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 06/03/2018     37695/16 20/07/2016 Constantin ENACHE 1977 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons 13/02/2015 to 20/12/2018 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 8 day(s) 534 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 23/12/2019     40683/16 09/08/2016 George CRISTEA 1963 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons 07/09/2015 to 08/01/2018 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s) 306 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 23/07/2013 - 10/01/2018     41256/16 02/08/2016 Ion TUDOR 1982     Poarta Albă and Tulcea Prisons 03/06/2013 to 30/10/2019 6 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 28 day(s) 498 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 31/07/2012 - 30/10/2019     42971/16 31/10/2016 Titus ILIUȚĂ 1951     Bistrița and Gherla Prisons 13/01/2016 to 29/12/2017 1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 17 day(s) 138 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 13/01/2016 - 29/12/2017   46337/16 01/08/2016 Ionel ZAMFIRACHE 1973     Iași Prison 05/04/2013 to 01/04/2014 11 month(s) and 28 day(s)   Iași and Galați Prisons 02/02/2016 to 20/12/2017 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 19 day(s) 336 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 23/12/2019   49838/16 14/01/2017 Ciprian-Nicu FLOREA 1976 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Rahova Prison and Jilava Prison Hospital 06/05/2016 to 08/03/2018 1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 3 day(s) 96 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 06/05/2016 to 08/03/2018   50846/16 07/10/2016 Anghel PATRAȘCU 1960 Ionela Mărgărit Bucharest Galați County Police Station and Brăila and Galați Prisons 19/07/2013 to 02/10/2018 5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 14 day(s) 378 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 19/07/2013 - 02/10/2018   54020/16 15/11/2016 Marian MOHAN 1953 Magda-Mihaela Nicolae Cornu de Jos Bucharest Central Arrest, Rahova and Ploiești Prisons 15/10/2014 to 31/05/2017 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 17 day(s) 354 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 15/10/2014 to 26/11/2019   56889/16 22/03/2017 Ioan-Octavian POPOVICI 1982 Liviu Radu Popovici Oradea Satu Mare Prison 16/09/2016 to 18/09/2018 2 year(s) and 3 day(s) 438 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 18/09/2018   61263/16 14/11/2016 Valeriu PISCUREANU 1964     Craiova and Târgu Jiu Prisons 16/01/2014 to 25/09/2018 4 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 10 day(s) 426 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 24/07/2012 to 25/09/2018   61779/16 19/10/2016 Mădălin-Ștefan ȘTIRB 1990 Vasile Rareş Biro Satu Mare Oradea and Satu Mare Prisons 14/09/2012 to 01/11/2017 5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 19 day(s) 372 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions between 24/07/2012 - 01/11/2017   62722/16 14/12/2016 Ștefan-Adrian POPESCU 1984 Irina Maria Peter Bucharest Bucharest Central Arrest, Bucharest Police detention facilities no. 13, Rahova and Giurgiu Prisons 14/12/2012 to 11/04/2019 6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 29 day(s) 444 days in compensation for a total period of detention spent in inadequate conditions from 14/12/2012 to 11/04/2019